Meeting documents

RESOLVED

That Mr T Burke be elected Chairman of the Thames Valley Police and Crime Panel Complaints Sub-Committee for the ensuing year.

There were no apologies.

To declare any personal or disclosable pecuniary interests

There were no declarations of interest.

To resolve to exclude the press and public as the following item is exempt by virtue of Paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12a of the Local Government Act 1972 because it contains information relating to an individual

RESOLVED

That the press and public be excluded for the following item which is exempt by virtue of Paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12a of the Local Government Act 1972 because it contains information relating to an individual

a)     Complaint 1 (report to follow)

b)     Complaint 2 (report to follow)

This was the first meeting of the Complaints Sub-Committee. The Sub-Committee had received a copy of the Scrutiny Officer’s report.  The Thames Valley Police & Crime Panel must handle non-criminal complaints against the Police & Crime Commissioner for Thames Valley; this is a statutory role. Initial complaint handling, recording and various other statutory duties of the Police & Crime Panel were delegated to the Chief Executive of the Office of the Police & Crime Commissioner for Thames Valley (OPCC) at the 6December 2012 meeting of the Thames Valley Police & Crime Panel.

The report containing these delegations also recommended that a Complaints Sub-Committee of the Panel be formed to handle the informal resolution, on behalf of the Panel, of complaints received directly or referred by the OPCC. A complaint handling procedure for the Panel was also proposed in the report and was adopted at the 6 December 2012 meeting.

Two non-criminal complaints against the PCC for Thames Valley have been referred to the Panel Secretariat by the OPCC; for each, a report has been compiled in accordance with the Panel’s complaint handling procedure. The procedure also required the Panel’s Scrutiny Officer to secure statements to the Sub-Committee by the respective complainants and the person subject to the complaints (the PCC). These statements were included in the Scrutiny Officer’s reports.

The Sub-Committee agreed that in general it was not considered in the public interest to publish these reports.

Complaint One (JS)

The Sub-Committee considered the report submitted by the Scrutiny Officer in relation to Complaint One:-

·         A Member commented that rather then send an apology a letter of explanation should be sent to the complainant. There was not sufficient weight to the complaint to offer an apology. Members agreed with this point.

·         The documents pre-dated the existence of the Complaints Sub-Committee and the Clerk acknowledged the complaint the day after the complaint was received. As the OPCC had been newly elected it was not unreasonable to expect some ‘snagging’ at the start, especially as he was setting up his new office and it was a transitional period.

·         The Sub-Committee agreed that it would not be reasonable or appropriate for everyone who had received the email to respond individually to the email. There should be a single point of contact who should be the Scrutiny Officer.

·         A complainant could reasonably expect a response in 7 days if they were not able to access information about the procedure. The complainant stated that information on the OPCC’s complaints procedure was, at the time, not available on the OPCC’s web page.

·         The OPCC website should be easy to navigate and Complaints Process should be written in plain English with clear response deadlines.

The Complaints Sub-Committee agreed that there was no case to answer and that the complaint should not be upheld but that a letter of explanation regarding the process should be sent to the complainant.

Complaint Two (SP)

The Sub-Committee considered the report submitted by the Scrutiny Officer in relation to Complaint Two:-

·         Whilst an apology was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.